Days after IPS officer Setia declared proclaimed offender, HC stays operation of the impugned order
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, February 25
Just about a week after IPS officer Dheeraj Kumar Setia was declared a proclaimed offender in a corruption case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order, while granting interim anticipatory bail to him.
The State’s stand in the matter was that the allegations were serious. “The investigation, which started for theft of Rs 50 lakh unfolded the theft of more than Rs 30 crores and gold” and the petitioner-IPS officer was named by a co-accused.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed the petitioner was nominated on basis of a disclosure statement. The special task force went to his office on December 3, 2021, with notice under the provisions of the CrPC for appearance on December 6, 2021. The petitioner was on leave, but sent a request through WhatsApp for extending the time. His arrest warrants were issued by the court on December 16, 2021.
Justice Jhingan asserted it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s request for extension of time for appearance in pursuance of the notice was dealt with by seeking arrest warrants. No delay was attributable to him in availing his remedies.
Justice Jhingan observed the petitioner was, in fact, pursuing his statutory remedies and was holding a senior post in disciplinary force since 17 years. It was not being disputed that he was having an unblemished service record.
Setia had filed moved the High Court through senior advocate Vinod Ghai with Manjeet Singh, Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Kanika Ahuja and Edward Augustine George. The State was represented by Assistant Advocate-General Dimple Jain.
Justice Jhingan added the petitioner’s name surfaced in disclosure statement and its evidentiary value would be subject matter of trial. The role attributed to the petitioner was that he received illegal gratification for helping accused, which he later partially returned.
“The petitioner is a high-ranking police official in the State of Haryana; there is no apprehension of his absconding or fleeing from justice. Prima facie no case is made out of custodial interrogation. Even if petitioner is clothed with protection of pre-arrest bail, balance can be struck between fair investigation and personal liberty of the petitioner,” the Bench added.
